Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why spend so much time and money setting all this up, campaigning for over a year and trying to reach out to every possible voter, if they're not even going to allow every voter to have their say?
There's something odd about supporters of the candidate with the least votes in the primaries, whose entire strategy for victory rests on surreptitiously loading the ranks of uncommitted delegates with his followers/fellow ideologues or gaining enough leverage to demand the nomination in a smoke-filled back room at a brokered convention, asking "why are they even having these primaries?"
I believe that distinction belongs to Newt Gingrich, dumbass...
Why spend so much time and money setting all this up, campaigning for over a year and trying to reach out to every possible voter, if they're not even going to allow every voter to have their say?
Well, Washington's primaries were cancelled to avoid spending all the time and money on them. Last night's event was a "presidential preference poll." At this point I imagine the party's had enough of letting every voter have their say and is eager to wrap this up for Romney this week.
How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?
Excuse me, but it seems that some of you don't know the difference between a caucus and a primary election.
Do you understand that at a caucus, a slate of delegates is elected in each precinct to move on to the county convention? Do you understand that it's a binding electoral event? The differences between a caucus and a primary mean nothing in this case.
How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?
So far, from what I'm seeing, state law regarding primaries explicitly excludes exception to races for the Presidency. Elsewhere, state law explicitly grants to each party the authority to set its own rules for its own functioning on matters not already addressed by state law. In other words, the party can do whatever it wants with its primaries. If it wants to get a few old, drunk guys in a room to flip a coin as its primary, that's the state party's prerogative.
No I'm not. I'm simply claiming it's a violation of voting rights. I never once mentioned anything about a conspiracy. I think it's a shame that Americans who wanted to cast a vote were told no.Excuse me, but it seems that some of you don't know the difference between a caucus and a primary election.
Do you understand that at a caucus, a slate of delegates is elected in each precinct to move on to the county convention? Do you understand that it's a binding electoral event? The differences between a caucus and a primary mean nothing in this case.
You're claiming that people being turned away at a caucus is some right-wing conspiracy.
These PaulBots have been infiltrating the Republican Party since 2008. In some states and counties they have been very successful.
They are all assholes and counterproductive to the Republican mission.
I wish they would form their own party then they can make their own rules.
The SCOTUS ruled in 1944, Smith v. Allwright, that the right to vote in primary elections was secured by the constitution.
The SCOTUS ruled in 1944, Smith v. Allwright, that the right to vote in primary elections was secured by the constitution.
The court ruled that the right to vote in a primary cannot be abridged on the basis of race or color.
These PaulBots have been infiltrating the Republican Party since 2008. In some states and counties they have been very successful.
They are all assholes and counterproductive to the Republican mission.
I wish they would form their own party then they can make their own rules.
Race was the reason for the case being heard, but the overall result was that the court recognized that constitutional rights to vote transcended party rules. They ruled that by virtue of their constitutional right to vote, blacks could not be excluded. The whole basis for the decision was constitutional voting rights.
Race was the reason for the case being heard, but the overall result was that the court recognized that constitutional rights to vote transcended party rules. They ruled that by virtue of their constitutional right to vote, blacks could not be excluded. The whole basis for the decision was constitutional voting rights.
No, you're twisting the ruling to say something it doesn't. The court specifically said "Texas is free to conduct her elections and limit her electorate as she may deem wise, save only as her action may be affected by the prohibitions of the United States Constitution or in conflict with powers delegated to and exercised by the National Government." The court noted that primaries are conducted in the state under legislative authority, it was under that premise that constitutional protections apply to the right to vote in a primary in Texas. Contrast that with Washington, where the caucus is not held under the authority of statute. Instead, statute explicitly excises application of its statutes to Presidential primaries of any kind.
The right to vote has always been maintained by the SCOTUS as abridgable. Constitutional protections to the right to vote regard such things as those amendments that address discrimination based on race, gender, and age. No such discrimination applies here.
What does it say about a party that doesn't concern itself with letting everyone have their say?
The ultimate result of a caucus is no different than a primary...delegates are selected. Caucus states just happen to typically have unbound delegates until their state convention is held. The difference fundamentally is simply in how the delegates are selected...but at the end of the day, whether it's a primary or a caucus, it's about the selection of delegates. Each precinct in a caucus state elects a slate of delegates to move on to its county convention. Why a party would want to disenfranchise voters in their ability to choose their delegate slates is beyond me.What does it say about a party that doesn't concern itself with letting everyone have their say?
Do you not understand the concept of a caucus in the first place? It's more of a general polling, to see which way the tide is flowing. In any event, the party held a caucus, the people running the show had to make decisions with the resources they had available to make the event organized. This is nothing more than a local issue, for local party officials to deal with and/or be held accountable for their successes and/or failures.
